Unipatch Rubber Limited Vs. C.C.E.

Unipatch Rubber Limited vs C.C.E.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 28, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27724

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/27724
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, B T K.K.
Decided On: Feb 28, 2002
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Unipatch Rubber Limited

Respondent

C.C.E.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(81)ECC616

Excerpt

1. appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby it was held that criss cross rubber patches for tyres manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under chapter heading 4008.22 (earlier 4008.21) of the central excise tariff act, 1985.3. we find that the issue in respect of classification of the product in question is settled by the tribunal in appellant's own case vide final order no. 477/2000-c dated 27.10.2000-d in appeal no. e/316/99-c.in this case the tribunal held that the criss cross rubber for tyres are classifiable under sub-heading 4008.22 (earlier 4008.21) of central excise tariff. the appellant had filed appeal against the order passed by the tribunal before the hon'ble supreme court which is admitted but the hon'ble supreme court had not granted any stay of operation of the order passed by the hon'ble tribunal. therefore, in view of the earlier order passed by the tribunal, we find no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby it was held that Criss Cross Rubber patches for tyres manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under Chapter heading 4008.22 (earlier 4008.21) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

3. We find that the issue in respect of classification of the product in question is settled by the Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 477/2000-C dated 27.10.2000-D in Appeal No. E/316/99-C.In this case the Tribunal held that the Criss Cross Rubber for tyres are classifiable under Sub-heading 4008.22 (earlier 4008.21) of Central Excise Tariff. The appellant had filed appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is admitted but the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not granted any Stay of operation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, we find no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Unipatch Rubber Limited vs C.C.E. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Kang, B T K.K.